I am so tired of President Bush. He drives me insane. All through last year's campaign we heard nothing from him but how consistent he is and what a flip-flopper Kerry is, how Bush has the strength of his convictions, blah blah blah.
Does Bush have any idea what it means to sit down and think something through? Does he understand what consistency means?
Here is a recent brilliant piece by William Saletan on Slate comparing recent statements by Bush on stem cell research and on the death penalty.
His belief that the death penalty deters crime just shows that he hasn't seen any research at all on that issue. (I know, I write like I'm assuming facts ever trump ideology for this guy.)
Really look at what Bush says about the death penalty. He doesn't say criminals should die because they deserve it, he says they should die because it saves the lives of others. Contrast that with what he says about stem cells -- that life should never be abused or destroyed for the sake of others -- and you have to wonder just what is wrong with this man's brain that he can't detect his own inconsistency?
And why don't his supporters hear it? Are they all this stupid?
Perhaps it's something that could be cured with stem cell therapy.
I confess I have not fully thought out the potential implications and ramifications of stem cell research. I'm still pondering it. Which is an okay place to be, I think. But here's what else I think:
Yes, stem cells are harvested from human embryos. Okay, that's a little discomforting. But we're talking tiny little blastocysts here. There is "life" in that little clump of cells. But is it really alive, and what does being alive mean?
This little clump of biological matter -- made up, as it is, from human DNA -- is not a human being. It is certainly not a conscious organism. It's not going to suffer. And harvesting these cells, which couldn't possibly cause pain, has the potential to relieve suffering for millions of human beings.
But the fundies come out screaming, "All life is sacred!" Well...okay, but the flu virus is alive. The bacteria that cause strep throat are alive. Cancer cells are alive. I mean, if "all life is sacred," then why must we strive to protect a microscopic clump of cells and yet find no sin in killing a chicken, which is at least a sentient being? (Sentient being? I guess I could have picked a better example than a chicken.)
Does the fact that these little cells are made from human DNA make that big a difference? (If your answer is, "Yes!," then...okay.)
I guess I just don't understand -- at least, not yet -- what's so wrong about taking senseless, identity-less cells and doing something with them that could be so helpful to so many people; I especially don't understand when ideologues rush to the defense of non-beings and yet somehow manage to justify war and the death penalty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think it's vital that the Left invest more energy towards understanding the finer points of the Right's various positions.
Abortion is considered "killing an innocent life." The word "innocent" is crucial, and to a lesser extent the word "life." Remember, their definition of "life" expands all the way to the spark of conception between the lucky egg and determined sperm.
Capital Punishment is about killing a human that has murdered or otherwise dramatically diminished (e.g., brain damaged) others' lives. Notice the contrast between "killing" and "murdered."
The first act, Abortion, has a result of not only eliminating one life, but probably their ancestors' lives as well. In contrast, the act of Capital Punishment sacrifices one life in the probable hope of saving other, innocent lives that the human might murder in the future.
Both positions, from this perspective, are clearly about saving *probable* lives.
Don't get me wrong, i neither support Capital Punishment, nor do i want to limit womens' reproductive healthcare options, and i think creating new lines of stem cells is important and maybe a moral imperative. But, the Left's juxtaposition of the supportive reasoning behind both the Right's embrace of Capital Punishment and rejection of Abortion is, well, simplistic -- and un-informed. That individuals within the Left cannot deduce the the link between these positions says much of our understanding, and knowledge, of the Right.
If we're to defeat them in 2008, and to fend-off a radical-right justice being appointed to the US Supreme Court, then we should understand our enemy's positions a wee-tad better than we have in recent days; It's not a scientific-based argument, but one of values.
rob@egoz.org
As someone now semi beridden and approaching the thirteenth anniversary of a life of literally constant pain, I'm an example of one category of life - those with Undifferentiated Connective Tissue Disease - that might be helped by stem cell research. And one that, as far as I can tell, right to lifers couldn't care less about until and unless a member of their family happens to get such a disease.
As far as I can tell, pro lifers only love things resembling babies, even if it's very remote - hence the interest in all microscopic precursors. It honestly makes zero sense to me either.
I sometimes wonder why they're not holding candlelight vigils every day and night for the world wide slaughter of gajillions of excess sperm and egg cells. All I can figure is they're participating in this terrible cruelty because they can't help themselves either.
It really is a hard thing to make sense of. Thanks for trying. I think my babies thing is as good as any theory I've run into so far. They just really really like babies.
I think the difference for the conservatives is this:
1. An embryo has not commited a crime and has not made any decision to end its life.
2. A person who is on death row has made decisions to end up there knowing that their actions could potentially cause a forfeiture of thier life.
To me that is what the conservative point of view boils down to.
These were all outstanding comments, thank you.
Rob, you are correct that many liberals haven't made any effort at all to try to understand the conservative viewpoint. The idea that a fetus is innocent and defenseless and a criminal has done something fully aware of the potential repercussions is exactly the reasoning that my father uses.
There are many, many problems with the death penalty in America; the two biggest, as I see it, are the grossly disproportionate percentage of minorities, especially African-Americans, on death row and also the frighteningly high number of convictions that have been overturned because of new evidence. We can be sure that our government has sent innocent people to their deaths. Research shows that poor people, especially minorities, just aren't getting a competent defense in many cases.
As a Christian, though, I just don't see that there is justification for avenging one crime with another.
And also personally I think abortion is a terrible, terrible thing, but I *also* believe it is completely and utterly and in all other ways wrong for the government to have control over a woman's body and reproductive choices. I don't think banning abortions is a good idea at all, and I don't think it will solve the problem.
I think we need honest and frank education in the public schools about sex and reproductive health: ignorance never kept anyone from getting pregnant. We need guaranteed health care coverage for every American; we need paid parental leave; and we need better resources for low-income women and families so that the decision to have an abortion is never made because of financial concerns.
Post a Comment